Many museums charge for admission while others are free.Do you think that the advantages of charging people for admission to museum outweigh the disadvantages? give reasons & include any relevant examples.

The number or museums all over the world is constantly increasing and the diversity of them is being enhanced. In order people to visit the exhibitions in the museums, they have to purchase a ticket, while there are museums, that do not have entrance fees. It is believed that both sides bring advantages and drawbacks underlying the controversial character of the topic.

Charging people in order to visit the artefacts possessed in a museum, has a lot of advantages. First and foremost, the museum's maintaining cost is very high. A significant proportion of the income that they have, is from the tickets people pay. For example, cleaning expenses and the security cost of a museum is mainly covered by admission fees. Furthermore, the quality of some artefacts is declined over time. The case of sculptures comes to illustrate this point. They are vulnerable to dust and light as a result their surface starting to get destroyed. The cost of the materials needed for sculpture maintenance is very high and is covered from the museum and not by the artist.

However, critics underline the fact that all people may have access to the museums, if there are not entrance fees. This gives the opportunity to lower-income class to visit museums and get connected with different types of art. Furthermore, museums are funded by government and other organisations. This means that the cost could be covered by the money provided from government, through an appropriate financial management.

To conclude, I believe that the museums should offer a vast majority of their exhibits to the audience free of charge, while there should be artefacts, that in order someone to have entrance to them, should pay a small ratio of money. In this way no one will be excluded from the exhibits, while the museums could be sustainable.